Ask the Deist Stuff

[BL2KTN]

I'll answer it all in reasonable time.

 

[Chesterton]

1) Does the diety care about us humans, and 2) who was Jesus Christ?

 

[True Scotsman]

I'll answer it all in reasonable time.

Before you were a deist, were you a member of an organized religion? The reason I ask is that I've heard it said that deism is a stop along the way to atheism. It was so for me.

 

[jacknife]

Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways?
Alright I"ll ask a real one. What do you believe the nature of god to be? is he bad, good? or do you feel we can not know the nature of god as of yet?

 

[Paradoxum]

Why believe in a God? Is God good, and why doesn't God interact with us?

 

[Received]

I'll answer it all in reasonable time.

Why is a person justified in responding a specific post, and what constitutes reasonable time?

 

[BL2KTN]

1) Does the diety care about us humans, and 2) who was Jesus Christ?

1) I have no idea.
2) There is no person with such a name. Perhaps you are referring to Yeshua of Nazareth?

 

[BL2KTN]

There is a book I read as a child, it's called the Search for Delicious, and one of the aspects of the book is that they go on a quest to find out the definition of delicious for a dictionary they are writing. The problem was that everyone had a different idea of what was delicious. It's the same concept here.

I have been a devoted Christian leader, biblical scholar, agnostic, and closet atheist. I think I have evolved to my final conclusion as a deist, but I'm open to be wrong (and if so, I can't wait to find out). At this point I would also classify myself as an optimistic transhumanist.

 

[BL2KTN]

Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways?

Because the English language is a mish-mash. Why does eight have a silent g an one not start with a w?

Alright I"ll ask a real one. What do you believe the nature of god to be? is he bad, good? or do you feel we can not know the nature of god as of yet?

I only know God to be the origin of all else. As fallible beings, we would all be incapable of absolutely knowing anything beyond such unless we speculate. My hope is that there is a good, intelligent creator that has a reason for all this. I'm not counting on that, however, and I'm not sure it's likely at all.

 

[BL2KTN]

Why believe in a God?

I think it is more probable that the universe has a original actor of some kind, and whatever can create a universe deserves the title "God". If Thor is a god and all he does is throw lighting bolts, creating universes deserves such. I don't know what God is, I don't know its attributes or qualities. I am like a speck on a grain of sand sitting on the beach... if I say I know what lies beyond the oceans, I'm a pompous liar.

Is God good, and why doesn't God interact with us?

I don't even know if God is intelligent or still exists... or maybe doesn't exist yet.

 

[BL2KTN]

Why is a person justified in responding a specific post, and what constitutes reasonable time?

A person is justified in responding to a specific post because this is a forum and a thread for doing so. A reasonable time for responding to a specific post would seem to be a length of time which doesn't feature answers to other later posts unless time is requested for extra study into a reply.

 

[jacknife]

Doesn't exist yet? Reminds me of a line from discworld "I remember when all this will be again"

 

[Chesterton]

1) I have no idea.
2) There is no person with such a name. Perhaps you are referring to Yeshua of Nazareth?

Well this is off to a good start.

 

[Received]

A person is justified in responding to a specific post because this is a forum and a thread for doing so.

Well, let me rephrase myself:

Why is a person required to respond to a post that someone else directed at him? Are there exceptions to this requirement?

A reasonable time for responding to a specific post would seem to be a length of time which doesn't feature answers to other later posts unless time is requested for extra study into a reply.

That is an incredibly specific criterion. How did you come by it (by what reasoning)?

 

[AlephBet]

Would it be reasonable to believe that the true hidden God cannot be represented by revelation of itself to mankind in mere words alone?

As an interesting thought, Father in Hebrew is Aleph Bet and the Son is called the Word. Letters make words as DNA makes a human. Letters make words and a book of life records our life essence. This information is reasonable, yet not a single Christian makes the connection to the title (not name) Father. Look it up. We are blind to it.

Reason would say that all Christians should know this information, yet none of them do. If you take wheat seed and grind it up, you can make bread with seed in water baking in an oven. If you take DNA (Aleph Bet) and place it in the cup (Mother's womb), you get bread of life. The word Mother is Aleph Mem.

Such profound information, yet very few can see with open eyes. Jesus is called the bread of life. The word Son in Hebrew is Bet Nun:

Isn't a loaf of bread a house of seed, baked in an oven and used for sustaining life? Have you ever heard this in a sermon? No, yet it's the very type of information that would allow people to see. The primary problem with religion is that something is blinding us. Revelation has nothing to do with this problem. Deist or Christian, it's of no use apart from the ability to know.

I have shown this information for years, yet no one can hear. God is not seen because we are blinded. That is the simple fact.

In other words, to reveal itself is impossible apart from becoming what it is at its essence. Imagine all the books and words that have ever been written. Could they describe the true God with simplicity, or would we still miss a great deal? Would we require higher axioms of truth, knowledge and wisdom to even understand? Would we need a better set of senses; intellect; processing power? Sadly, the answer is yes. Bridging the gap between communication is reciprocal to the response you get from the one receiving the information. In all cases, our limitations are restrictions to understanding. Even if we had the information, we could never know beyond the doubt of our own limitations.

God has designed us to be blinded, locked in darkness. This is evident from this very forum. I have traveled most of the larger forums. Humanity cannot see. Even for those of us who see more, sin is ever present. Nothing changes. If a Christian tells you they have overcome, it's a lie. Jesus stated it well when he said none are good but the Father.

Is there a simple way to see God from one scrap of truth that we can reason easily?

To me, the answer is simple. God is love. From this, we know his will as a simple conclusion. God's will is to give and receive. Taking marks the thief. From God's will, we can know him as an introduction, yet realize he is unknowable. God is not a thief. I don't need special revelation for this. It's evident as the highest truth possible.

What do we find of the OT God Yahweh? A willingness to take. Arrogance with his desire to rule and a fixation on being worshiped. He makes mistakes often and has a changeable nature. He makes a decision, then adapts his decision to the reasoning of men.

What about Jesus? In many places, we find out that peacemakers are blessed and we are to love enemies, even turning the cheek. Jesus promotes the will of the Father to give only. Then, we read this:

Matthew 10

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn


“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
​

Between statements, we see contradiction with our simple reasoning. On one hand, we are to follow his example and make peace by our own actions. On the other hand, his mission seems to be a coming strife. He contradicts Yahweh in this as well.

Malachi 4 (Very last words of Yahweh)

5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.”
​

What type of reasoning do we need to get past the contradiction and paradox? The average person cannot begin to understand these things. Communication is the response you get. Clearly, God is not getting a good response from billions of people. Clearly, under this system of Babel, our Christian faith condemns people for intelligence level alone.

For me, it boils down to two questions like these:

1) How thoroughly can the average person learn a subject they are fond of learning (mathematics for instance)? How well can a teacher transfer this knowledge to a willing student?

---Answer: it depends on the person, but the knowledge is available and a willing student can learn most anything. In the case of religion, there are billions of willing students, but no real teachers who know anything.

2) How poorly has God given us knowledge of Himself? Are terms defined? Can we even agree on what blasphemy means? Anyone venture a guess as to the true meaning of baptism, knowing how varied our understanding already is at present?

---Answer: it still depends on the person, but the knowledge is so convoluted that no one teacher agrees on the theory or theology. It's a mess of misdirection and misunderstandings wrapped in poorly transliterated babel.

Only one answer to this: God's communication is not clear. We have little reason to know why Jesus said this next verse, yet our theology says they know this and much more. Is there truly orthodox faith?

Luke 18:19

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
​

Who is the Father? Do we know? What is His nature as demonstrated by our senses or perception? Can we detect a hidden God? Why is the Father good, yet Yahweh says he is the ONLY god with none beside? Why does Jesus clearly point to another, yet theology states that Jesus is the ONLY God? Is Yahweh the Lord or is Jesus? Is the Son of God Yahweh, or is Yahweh the Father? Is the Father Elohim from Genesis 1, or is Ruach Elohim the Holy Spirit? Do we know any of these answers? Why did Yahweh kill, yet Jesus says to love enemies?

While we are on the subject, let's figure this one out:

Exodus 4

24 Along the way they stopped for the night. Yahweh met Moses and tried to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it. She said, “You are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So Yahweh let him alone. It was because of the circumcision that she said at that time, “You are a bridegroom of blood!”
​

Surly, our reasoning can get this passage easily. With that said, I see why you choose Deism. At least it's an honest response to faith. If we believe the Bible to be accurate, Satan was made by Yahweh in Genesis 3:1. Can our reasoning know why? How many will go to Hell (perceived or real) because of lack of reasoning ability? Can we trust Yahweh when he makes his own worst enemy?

The best answer is what I said before. God is Love. It's the best place to start. From there, you can easily spot the counterfeit gods. Love keeps no records of wrongs. How could it? Love must always give. Reasoning as a Deist would reason, anyone can understand that a thief takes. God cannot be limited by our own limitations. His will must be the highest. Love is the simple answer to God.

The concept of sin says God has a threshold of patience and love. Reason would tell us God us unlimited.

With that said, do you trust that God is the highest good, or do you trust revelation of him from Angels and Men?

I too believe the answer is within us all. We don't need to know anything less than God's Love and his ability to always give.

Only a thief takes.

One more question: I seem to get the point of Love. Did I learn it form revelation, or was the revelation light revealing what was already there to begin with?

Read Kant:

"
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]THERE can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. For how should our faculty of knowledge be awakened into action did not objects affecting our senses partly of themselves produce representations, partly arouse the activity of our understanding to compare these representations, and, by combining or separating them, work up the raw material of the sensible impressions into that knowledge of objects which is entitled experience? In the order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience. For it may well be that even our empirical knowledge is made up of what we receive through impressions and of what our own faculty of knowledge (sensible impressions serving merely as the occasion) supplies from itself. If our faculty of knowledge makes any such addition, it may be that we are not in a position to distinguish it from the raw material, until with long practice of attention we have become skilled in separating it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]This, then, is a question which at least calls for closer examination, and does not allow of any off-hand answer: whether there is any knowledge that is thus independent of experience and even of all impressions of the senses. Such knowledge is entitled a priori, and distinguished from the empirical which has its sources a posteriori, that is, in experience.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The expression ‘a priori‘ does not, however, indicate with sufficient precision the full meaning of our question. For it has been customary to say, even of much knowledge that is derived from empirical sources, that we have it or are capable of having it a priori, meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from experience, but from a universal rule — a rule which is itself, however, borrowed by us from experience. Thus we would say of a man who undermined the foundations of his house, that he might have known a priori that it would fall, that is, that he need not have waited for the experience of its actual falling. But still he could not know this completely a priori. For he had first to learn through experience that bodies are heavy, and therefore fall when their supports are withdrawn.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori knowledge, not knowledge independent of this or that experience, but knowledge absolutely independent of all experience. Opposed to it is empirical knowledge, which is knowledge possible only a posteriori, that is, through experience. A priorimodes of knowledge are entitled pure when there is no admixture of anything empirical. Thus, for instance, the proposition, ‘every alteration has its cause’, while an a priori proposition, is not a pure proposition, because alteration is a concept which can be derived only from experience."

Or, read Aristotle and Meno's conversation on the same. How do we unlock meta-cognition as a sense? Learn to open ears and eyes. Look orthogonally at truth.

We've had the answers since the beginning: MENO

Deist or faithful Christian, the process is the same. God's will is for us to awaken to truth. God accomplishes this when we receive the Strong Water Mark:

Hebrew word Truth is Aleph Mem Tav:

[/FONT]

If the truth sets us free, we receive a new Robe (body) and Mind (Crown). Once we get it, we will get it all.

LOVE! It's the only knowledge we need. First, we need to learn to be what we desire most.

Non-Being - Death
Being - Life
Becoming - Baptism, rising to NEW life

We become what we desire most.

 

[Davian]

 

[Deidre32]

I'm now a Deist, after departing from Christianity. How long have you been a Deist, and what led you to your beliefs?

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON



I'm closing any "Ask the..." threads as they are off topic to this forum.


MOD HAT OFF